Over the past few years, I've taken a deep dive into Zionism in my personal and professional studies. I've read more books, papers, and articles than I can count. I've interviewed experts, scholars, and analysts, and done extensive research into specific topics and areas of thought. I've published more than 150 columns on Zionism and taught hundreds of classes on Zionism to people of all ages and knowledge levels. Don't tell anyone, but I'm about to publish a book on Zionism.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

I don't know if I'm an expert on Zionism, but I am more than a layperson on the topic.

Unlike other historical movements throughout Jewish history, Zionism is unique in its openness and lack of ideological rigidity. With the exception of a few basic principles, such as the Jewish people having rights to self-determination in their historic homeland and that Israel should always act as a haven for Jews needing refuge, Zionism is ideologically flexible. Consider for example that early Zionists entertained the idea of setting up a Jewish state outside of the Land of Israel.

Israel's founders never wrote a constitution and never declared that certain policies and laws must remain Israel's eternally. At the founding of the state, Israel's first Knesset opted to pass "basic laws" gradually rather than compose a constitution all at once. This allowed successive Israeli governments to keep the door open to adding and subtracting foundational laws and policies based on the priorities of the elected representatives at the time.

As with most Israeli policies, there are proponents and opponents of this decision. It is undeniable however that it was consistent with early Zionists' flexible approach.

Reviewing contemporary Zionist writings reveals many assumptions today's Zionists make about their movement and the state it created, few of which are based on the writings, speeches, or positions of early Zionists. Many of these assumptions are not based on early Zionist principles but rather taken from Israel's policies in its 75-year existence.

Today, many Zionists maintain that if Israel was governed a certain way for decades, then those policies must reflect how early Zionists imagined the future Jewish state. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Theodor Herzl's writings knows that today's Israel doesn't reflect the Jewish utopian state Herzl envisioned.

A larger, related misconception is that Zionism means Israel must continue operating as it has in the past. This belief isn't consistent with early Zionists' principles. Zionism's dearth of sacred cows and openness to constant modification is a source of debate among Zionists today, as is reflected by the modern proponents and opponents of the need to craft an Israeli constitution.

A significant aspect of the discussion surrounding Israel's foundational principles and their application today is the observation many Zionists make regarding how almost all of Israel's founders came from a small segment of the Jewish people. This group was not representative of women, Mizrahim, Americans, Ethiopians, the ultra-Orthodox, and countless other Jewish minority groups (forget about Arab Israelis!)

These founders chose policies based on the values they maintained were best for Israel. These policies and the laws that resulted from them weren't flawless, and their writers weren't infallible. The Israel they produced is a success, yet many Israelis view certain aspects of it as anathema to their values.

Israeli citizens from minority sectors have been powerless to change the laws and policies they find objectionable, however, because power has remained in the hands of a select few. For example, all of Israel's prime ministers have been Ashkenazi men.

These minorities argue that Israel's success doesn't prove Israel's policies can't and shouldn't be improved. They also make the point that Israel wouldn't have been a stronger and more democratic state had its policies been developed by a larger cross-section of Israel's citizens.

It is disturbing to hear the country's small elite decry any modification of Israel's policies as a betrayal of Zionism and Israel that threatens the existence of the state itself. As a movement intentionally devoid of sacred cows, there are no Israeli laws and policies whose repeal would end the Israel the Jewish people dreamed of for millennia.

Israel can change, and it must change, constantly, if it is to truly represent the entirety of the Jewish people and not just those who have enjoyed influence and power for 75 years. When Zionists preach about the way Israel "must remain," they're not talking about Israel, the Jewish state; they're talking about Israel, their state.

Israel's policies should be determined by its people and their elected representatives. Many Zionist communities don't maintain that Western values are sacrosanct and untouchable; they aren't the priorities of a number of Israel's minority communities. As more and more of Israel's cross-section, and especially minorities, gain their voices, expect their representatives to change some of the policies the up-to-now ruling class has considered fundamental to Israel's existence.

The Zionism of Israel's founders allows every principle, law, and policy to be open for consideration and modification. The debate leading up to these new policy considerations will be robust and reflective of Israel's strong independent nature. The upcoming discussions will make Israel a stronger democracy – one that represents the views of all its citizens, even the traditionally marginalized ones.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Zionism has very few sacred cows appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

After 2,000 years of antisemitic persecution, one would think that no one – especially Jews – would deny the existence of antisemitism.

Unfortunately, there are those, even Jews, who do precisely this. Their refusal to recognize blatant antisemitism is shocking, but it becomes heinous when they don't just deny antisemitism, but gaslight those who do.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

This is a particularly horrible act of abuse. Instead of supporting the abused, gaslighters reverse the accusation and blame the victim for "crying wolf" and demonizing their abuser.

Worse still, gaslighting Jews allows antisemites to continue victimizing the Jewish community and even emboldens them to intensify their acts of hatred. It puts more Jews in danger.

Denying blatant antisemitism is not only dangerous in regard to individual acts of hate. It is just as harmful when the hate is directed against Zionism and the State of Israel.

No country is as unfairly demonized as the Jewish state. It is imperative to characterize this demonization of Israel for what it is – antisemitism. Legitimate criticism of Israel is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged, but slander and defamation is a very different thing, and must be confronted.

Today, one of the most common slanders of Israel is that Israel practices apartheid against the Palestinians.

For decades, this accusation was confined to Palestinian apologists and blatant antisemites. Recently, however, Amnesty International repeated the claim, normalizing it in spaces where it had previously been ignored.

The Zionist community took deep offense at this slander and accused Amnesty International of antisemitism. Almost immediately, anti-Zionist Jews began gaslighting Zionists for doing so. They claimed Amnesty's accusation was legitimate criticism and not an antisemitic attack. This defense of Amnesty emboldened other antisemites to repeat and spread the accusation.

The most widespread form of gaslighting is the anti-Zionist world's attacks on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

The definition, which has been adopted by numerous governments and organizations, includes (1) denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor; (2) applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; (3) using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism, e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or the blood libel, to characterize Israel or Israelis; (4) drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Anti-Zionists gaslight Jews who support the IHRA definition by claiming that Israel's supporters use it to falsely label criticism of Israel as antisemitism. They further claim that the definition is itself antisemitic because it unfairly targets Jews who legitimately accuse Israel of various crimes.

This is a remarkable and monstrous claim. It both denies antisemitism and asserts that combating antisemitism is antisemitism. Moreover, it holds that fighting antisemitism is a form of oppression because it prevents legitimate criticism of Israel and is used to "cancel" Israel's critics. This reverses victim and perpetrator and demonizes the former.

The Zionist community and Israel advocates must recognize when they are being gaslit and push back against the gaslighters. Above all, they must assert the Jews' expertise on this particular subject. After thousands of years of facing hate, Jews are more than qualified for recognizing and defining antisemitism.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Don't let the gaslighters misrepresent the IHRA appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel has the chips stacked against it when it comes to economic success. Unlike many other Middle Eastern states, Israel has no natural resources to bolster its economy. While other nation's treasuries overflow with oil money, 60% of Israel is empty desert. Add to this Israel's security concerns, and the Jewish state's survival is considered by many to be miraculous and its success inexplicable.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

In their book "Start-Up Nation," authors Dan Senor and Saul Singer took an innovative approach to explaining Israeli hi-tech companies' considerable success in the global marketplace. Senor and Singer pointed to Israel's mandatory military service and Israeli culture in general as the key to Israel's success. Military service shapes and forms the Israeli population, as soldiers learn teamwork, courage and, most importantly for the roles they'll be playing in civilian life, how to innovate.

Senor and Singer pointed to the fact that most armies have a strict hierarchy in which high-ranking officers give orders to lower-ranking officers with no room for the latter to express their opinions. The IDF is different. Lower-ranking officers are not only allowed to offer their opinions, but are encouraged to do so.

The lack of formality in the IDF can seem outrageous to experienced soldiers from other militaries. They sometimes say there's only one word for it – chutzpah. The IDF's indulgence of chutzpah encourages boldness of thought, creativity and self-confidence. On the battlefield, these traits can make the difference during harrowing operations like the 1976 Entebbe rescue. In the hi-tech world, chutzpah fosters a culture of innovation and creativity.

Israeli chutzpah spreads to realms outside the battlefield and the marketplace. Most non-Israelis who have watched a Knesset debate are shocked by the raucous lack of decorum. Knesset members yell at each other, interrupt speakers mid-sentence and even openly mock each other. If chutzpah at its best creates apps that change the world, chutzpah at its worst manifests in a Knesset that resembles an out-of-control kindergarten more than a world-class parliament.

The lack of decorum in the Knesset isn't only attributable to chutzpah, but also to a general lack of formality and sensitivity in Israeli society. Israeli drivers seem to wake up angry and honking their car horns every morning. Traffic lights barely turn green and cars three or four back in line already start honking their horns. There's little to no consideration for the angst this causes other drivers or the noise pollution that disturbs entire neighborhoods every morning. The general lack of decorum creeps into every aspect of Israeli life. Store clerks are more likely to scold and refuse to help than offer customer service and government workers are obstinate and create bureaucratic quagmires that seem insurmountable.

Anglo immigrants to Israel from countries like England, Australia, South Africa and America struggle the most with Israeli chutzpah and lack of formality. The constant honking grates on their nerves, the lack of customer service befuddles them and the government bureaucracy upsets them to levels where they almost want to find Theodor Herzl and convince him to keep at his job as a journalist instead of creating Zionism. When talking to Anglo immigrants in Israel, complaints about these aspects of Israeli society are frequently heard, along with dismay that Israelis cannot act with more refinement and civility.

The immigrants who strive to improve (in their eyes) Israeli society through Anglo-style patience, courtesy and politeness fail to recognize that Israel could only have succeeded because of chutzpah and lack of formality. Herzl and other early Zionist activists' audaciousness in attempting to convince the world to give the Jewish people their historic homeland and allow them to create a state required an overdose of chutzpah. When the British turned their backs on the Jewish people with their White Paper, the Jewish people's chutzpah led them to fight the British instead of giving up on the dream of their own state.

An argument can be made that refining Israeli life to look more like Anglo countries could harm Israel's success. Israeli chutzpah isn't a bug, it's a feature. Israel's triumph is directly tied to its culture. The IDF didn't create this lack of formality, it is inherent in Israeli life. It was forged in the swamps the early Zionists drained, the fields where Haganah and Irgun fighters fought to defend the nascent State of Israel and in the study halls where Torah scholars who survived the Holocaust recreated their old communities in a new Land of Israel. As long as Israeli chutzpah persists, Israel will continue to overcome impossible odds.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Is chutzpah a bug or a feature of Israeli life? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As Israel celebrated its 75th birthday last week, scores of American elected representatives, from the president to members of Congress to mayors across the country celebrated 75 years of a strong US-Israel relationship.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a video from Israel in which he said, "75 years ago the State of Israel was born, and over the last 75 years there has been a special relationship between Israel and the United States of America."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

A question worth asking is if the US-Israel relationship has been as special for 75 years as it is today. Lately, anti-Zionists have used the strong US-Israel relationship as a talking point. They claim that the Jewish people are illegally occupying Palestinian land and that Zionism is a colonial enterprise. Zionism has been successful at stealing Palestinian land because of US support. Without it, the anti-Zionists hold, the Jewish people would never have been given a land at all. Many Zionists respond to this in the wrong way. Instead of focusing on Israel's strength and resilience, they denigrate the US-Israel relationship. They claim the relationship isn't as old or as special as its advocates claim. These Zionists have begun retelling the history of the US-Israel relationship and call into question the traditional narrative.

They claim that, in the early 1940s, America knew about the Holocaust and did nothing to stop it. Then, America did everything it could to prevent the Jewish people from declaring their own independent state. They point out that President Harry S. Truman only granted Israel de facto, rather than de jure recognition. They also note that the US joined the arms embargo against Israel and did not sell weapons to the Jewish state for almost 20 years.
America's lack of support for Israel was consistent with its foreign policy, critics say. The Pentagon, CIA and State Department were hives of antisemitic bureaucrats. America's foreign policy was focused on opposing the Soviet Union and ensuring a steady stream of oil from Arab countries. The last thing the US wanted in Israel's early years was a strong relationship with the Jewish state. Truman's recognition of Israel was an anomaly that was quickly corrected.
These arguments go so far as to claim the Soviet Union was more supportive of Israel than America. Critics say that the Soviets were the first to grant Israel de jure recognition and allowed their satellite Czechoslovakia to send massive arm shipments to Israel, giving it the weapons it needed to survive.

These arguments are false. It is true that Truman only granted Israel de facto recognition and that the US not only refused to sell Israel arms but participated in the global arms embargo for years. It is also true that Israel defended itself without America's help for decades. Moreover, anti-Zionists have indeed distorted the US-Israel relationship by portraying it as a colonial conspiracy to rob Palestinians of their land rather than as a partnership between two freedom-loving countries. But none of this takes away from the strength of the longstanding US-Israel relationship. This relationship, in fact, predates Zionism itself. For well over a century, many Americans, including presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson believed in the Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel. Many Americans actively tried to reestablish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel and supported the Zionist movement when it began.

The US-Israel relationship has grown stronger year after year. It has evolved from a one-way relationship into a partnership that benefits both nations. The core of the relationship is the shared values of freedom, human rights and justice, which both Americans and Israelis stand for every single day. Common strategic objectives strengthen this relationship. Today, the Israeli and American militaries, intelligence services, and national security institutions work hand in hand to stop the world's worst actors. It is true that neither country is dependent on the other, but that does not take away from the importance of the relationship. The truth about this relationship is obvious to any rational thinker. It is important not to allow irrational and agenda-driven narratives to sway Zionists from their core belief that the Jewish people have a right to their historic homeland and the state they have built shares America's most basic values.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Two narratives of the US-Israel relationship appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

At one time or another, we've all heard a Jewish comedian tell an antisemitic joke – and we cringe. While such jokes are often funny, they also perpetuate antisemitic stereotypes we would be better off without. They can be funny in a comedy club, but inevitably become dangerous when they are adopted by genuine antisemites.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram  

This illustrates an interesting and perhaps puzzling double standard: The same joke that, if told by a non-Jew, would result in accusations of antisemitism, receives belly laughs when told by a Jew.

Jews, of course, know a great deal about double standards. Indeed, double standards and antisemitism often go hand-in-hand. They are almost constant in debates about issues related to Israel, such as the IDF's conduct of its wars, Israeli immigration policies and the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs. Put simply, the world holds Israel to one standard, and everybody else to another.

Double standards are usually a product of hypocrisy. This is the case even with the close alliance between the US and Israel. For example, the American military uses drones to assassinate targets in civilian areas, which often leads to civilian deaths. Yet the US sometimes criticizes Israel for doing exactly the same thing, usually with far less collateral damage.

However, the issue of double standards is more complicated than it appears. This is because the Jews also hold themselves to a different standard. The Jews maintain that they are the uniquely chosen people. This does not mean that Jews are inherently special, but rather that they are charged with the responsibility of being a light unto the nations, a model of exemplary behavior. To meet this requirement, every Jew must hold themselves to a higher standard than others, almost by definition. The opportunity to sanctify God's name and the commandment to avoid desecrating God's name demand nothing less.

The early Zionists understood that the state they sought to build would be unlike any other. While this state would be a member of the global community like all other countries, it would also be a Jewish state. It would be more than just a "state for Jews." Instead, it would be a state whose society was consistent with Jewish values. Exemplary ethical behavior would be one of its top priorities.

Today, Israel often does hold itself to a higher moral standard than the rest of the world. War is a terrible thing, but Israel makes an honest and sometimes hazardous effort to conduct it in an ethical manner. Often, this prioritizes the lives of civilians, and potentially enemy combatants, over those of IDF soldiers.

This sense of an ethical imperative is even more apparent in Israel's humanitarian efforts. For example, it establishes field hospitals in the world's worst disaster zones and opens its borders to refugees from Africa to Ukraine.

All of this, however, leads us to a paradox: Israel holds itself to a higher standard, but when other countries – or organizations and individuals – hold Israel to a higher standard, this is seen as antisemitism. At first glance, this appears to be a contradiction.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

It is not. Jews may hold themselves and Israel to a higher standard, but no one else has the right to do so. This standard is how the Jews have decided to judge their own behavior. It is for domestic use only. The larger world has its own set of standards and, of course, must apply it equally to all. The Jews' decision to adhere to a higher standard does not give the world the right to deviate from its own standards, which it holds to be universally applicable.

However, this does not mean Israel should stop holding itself to its own standard. Many argue, for example, that Israel should never put its own soldiers at risk by holding them to a higher moral standard than any other army in the world. But if Israel acted like any other nation, it would forfeit its role as the exemplar of moral behavior it is required to be as a Jewish state. Israel isn't and will never be a nation like all other nations. It has a unique role in the global community, and must act accordingly.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The paradox of Jewish double standards appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

On Nov. 1, Israelis will go to the polls to elect the next Knesset. It is the fifth election in three years. While some of the faces have changed, some parties are no longer relevant and others have jumped in the polls, for the most part the candidates and parties are the same as in the past.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Polls taken the week before the election not only showed little movement since the election was announced, but little movement since the first election three years ago. Moreover, the most frustrating thing isn't that the same parties are receiving the same number of votes time after time, but that the "blocs" – the two sides of the coalition divide – remain the same. Half of them refuse to join a government with anyone from the other half, and vice-versa. Thus, even though a government could be formed, it won't be.

All of this leads to a sense of exhaustion and apathy among Israeli voters. Worn out by the near-constant campaigning, Israelis are sick and tired of having to listen to the same attack ads, unrealistic campaign pledges and poll after poll that never seems to get it right. They are sick of politicians who hold on past their time, refusing to retire when they should. They are tired of candidates making promises mid-campaign only to break them in order to get a seat at the Sunday morning cabinet meeting. There is a lack of enthusiasm for this election that is unparalleled in Israel's history.

Indeed, it's challenging for the Israeli citizen not to become cynical about the political process, the candidates and our leaders in general. It's difficult not to feel that some candidates have put their own self-interest and political survival ahead of the needs of the Jewish people. Needless to say, this viewpoint doesn't inspire enthusiasm for elections.

As a result, some Israelis, consciously and deliberately, may choose not to vote. Besides apathy and exhaustion, some of them have moral reasons for not voting: They don't want to vote for someone who will harm Israel while they're in office. Others take a more pragmatic stand, explaining that a non-vote is a protest vote. When challenged that no one will ever know they didn't vote and their protest will be ineffective, they respond with the Torah's idea of a machah, a legal protest that only requires two people to hear it.

A small group of Israelis, however, will want to vote and feel they should vote, but simply can't bring themselves to do so. This small but growing segment of the Israeli population presents us all with a dilemma. Responsible leadership must address it.

There are Israelis who believe it is abhorrent not to vote. They maintain that every citizen in a democracy has a responsibility to every other citizen to participate in the nation's elections. Refusing to vote because candidates don't meet your standards is shirking one's responsibility. After all, they believe, if enough citizens decide to protest by not voting, the elected officials won't be representatives of the people.

Nonetheless, if these elections do not produce a clear coalition and a ruling government that lasts for at least two years, something must change, because if Israel's political leaders continue on this path, more and more Israelis will feel alienated from the political process. They will choose to stay home.

We shouldn't be pessimistic or cynical about elections. The ability to vote is not only a responsibility, but an opportunity. For decades, the early Zionists battled so the two-thousand-year-old dream of Jewish self-determination in Eretz Yisrael would be realized. For the first time, Jews have the opportunity to vote for their future. That isn't an opportunity to walk away from, even in protest. But Israel's politicians also have a responsibility and an opportunity – to give us something to vote for.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The ethics of not voting appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.